Who is Afraid of Flexitime: Correlates of Personal Choice of a Flexitime Schedule

L'étude examina les facteurs influençant la volonté d'entrer dans un système d'horaires fiexibles. Les facteurs observés comprenaient des variables de travail c.a.d. la satisfaction au travail, le niveau de la profession et la centralité du travail, et des variables hors travail c.a.d. le temps de trajet, le stress du trajet et les activités de loisirs, et des variables de personnalité, c.a.d. le besoin de développement. Des questionnaires furent administrés à 125 employés examinant les propositions de leur entreprise d'adopter des horaires variables. Une analyse discriminante indiqua que le choix des horaires variables était d'abord liéà des besoins personnels de développement. Un rôle plus secondaire était joué par la perception des horaires variables comme moyens d'éviter, réduire ou compenser les aspects indésirables de la vie de travail ou hors travail d'un individu.
This study examined factors influencing die willingness to enter into a flexitime schedule. Factors surveyed included: Work variables such as work satisfaction, job level, and work centrality; non-work variables such as commuting time, commuting strain, and leisure activities; and personality variables such as need for growth. Questionnaires were administered to 125 employees contemplating a work-site proposal to move to a flexitime schedule. Discriminant analysis indicated that flexitime choice was primarily related to personal growth needs. A more secondary role was played by perceptions of flexitime as a means to avoid, reduce, or compensate for undesirable aspects of a person's working or non-working life.     

Spatial cueing and the relation between the accuracy of “where” and “what” decisions in visual search

To study the processes underlying selective attention in visual search, the relation between the accuracy of “where” (location) and “what” (same/different orientation matching) decisions was analysed under various display conditions. Target-non-target discriminability was varied by contrasting single and multiple element displays; further, attention was directly manipulated by spatial cueing. In Experiment 1, analyses for both single and multiple displays showed that localization accuracy remained above chance when same/different matching failed; the inverse also obtained. It seems that accurate matching is not a prerequisite for target localization, nor is accurate localization a prerequisite for same/different matching. However, localization is a prerequisite for the accurate recognition of target orientation (Experiment 2). In this case, it seems that features critical for localization “call” attention to a particular candidate location. This facilitates further (shape) analysis of the stimulus that is found there. This orienting process is by-passed if attention is cued to the location in advance.